[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 30 (Thursday, March 17, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 17, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                         THE WHITEWATER AFFAIR

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as I said, I had come to the floor to 
discuss the pending legislation. As I hear the debate on the Whitewater 
affair, I am impressed with the fact that much of the discussion has 
not dealt with the fundamental distinction between grand jury 
proceedings and congressional oversight hearings such as those which 
might be conducted by a select committee or by one of our existing 
committees.
  The special prosecutor has referred a number of issues to grand 
juries which are by their nature, and by the requirements of law, 
secret. And it is an open question as to how long those investigations 
will last. The grand juries are impaneled for a period up to 18 months. 
Very frequently, grand juries are extended beyond that period. When a 
matter is before an investigating grand jury, they can take a very long 
time. On the other hand, a congressional oversight inquiry is one which 
is disclosed to the public, and one where the public has insight into 
what is occurring.
  My own view is the country's best interests would be served by having 
oversight hearings preferably by a select committee so we do not have 
hearings conducted by many committees which have partial jurisdiction 
over the so-called Whitewater affair.
  The critical difference is that these issues have been raised in the 
public view, and they have understandably attracted much public 
attention. The sooner there are answers to these pending questions, the 
sooner we can go on with the business of the country.
  I have not participated in any accusations against the President 
because I do not know what the facts are. But there is no doubt there 
is an enormous distraction to the President's business. In his speech 
in Boston day before yesterday with the expression of concern, to put 
it mildly, with the repetitive ``no, no, no,'' et cetera, some nine 
``noes''; there is no doubt that this is a matter of overwhelming 
concern to the President, to the First Lady, and to the entire 
operation of Government.
  This is a matter of great importance at a time when it would be 
vastly preferable if the President could focus on the problems of the 
Mideast where we saw the Israeli Prime Minister yesterday, the problems 
of Russia and our complex transactions there, the difficulties with 
North Korea, the issue about their having nuclear weapons, the issue of 
the budget, the issue of health care, the issue of the economy, and so 
many, many issues.
  There is one matter I have been concerned about where there has not 
been the kind of disclosure which I think ought to have been made 
public. That concerns the meetings which were conceded by the White 
House 2 weeks ago yesterday. It is the meeting where Treasury officials 
met with officials of the White House where all of the indications were 
those who were conducting an investigation, were privy to the 
investigation, were informing those who were interested in the 
potential subjects of the investigation. That, Mr. President, I think 
is fundamentally wrong.
  It is my view there should have been a very detailed explanation as 
to what happened in those meetings where you had a high-ranking 
official like the No. 2 man in the Treasury Department meeting with the 
counsel to the President. When I read about those meetings, it seemed 
to me that unless there could be explicit public assurances that the 
subject matter of those meetings did not involve the RTC investigation, 
and explicit public assurances that those who were privy to the 
investigation in Treasury were not making inappropriate disclosures to 
the counsel to the President, and others in the White House who were 
apparently looking after the interests of the President, and others in 
the executive branch; unless there could be those explicit assurances, 
then the people who were involved in those meetings ought not to be in 
Federal employment. Their employment ought to be terminated. They ought 
to be asked to resign, or they ought to be fired.
  I say that because this is a very different standard from being the 
subject of a grand jury investigation, or having a criminal prosecution 
brought as a result of a grand jury investigation, contrasted with 
holding a job. That is a matter which has yet to be explained.
  It seems to me in the absence of a detailed explanation as to what 
happened in those meetings, and that has not been forthcoming even 
though it is under investigation by the special prosecutor, that 
investigation is secret, and necessarily so under the law which governs 
grand jury proceedings. It is a matter of utmost important to the 
American people and ought to be disclosed.
  If I had the authority to convene a Senate hearing, that is the 
subject that I would convene a Senate hearing on very, very promptly 
because those are important questions. Those questions have gone 
unanswered.
  When the assertions have been made by the executive branch that there 
is no impropriety, I do not challenge that. But I do think there has 
been sufficient interest in the matter that all of the issues ought to 
be presented to the public that can be handled in the appropriate 
oversight proceedings which is a congressional responsibility. 
Regretfully, Congress does not engage in much oversight or as much 
oversight as we should.
  This is one issue where oversight is sorely needed. And again 
focusing on the very different function of the special prosecutor, he 
cannot carry out the congressional authority on oversight. The critical 
difference is the secrecy of the grand jury proceeding contrasted with 
the public disclosure in the congressional oversight which I think 
ought to be undertaken.
  The distinguished Republican leader has talked about a possible 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution. The distinguished majority leader has 
talked about a possible sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It is my hope 
that matter will come to the floor, will be approved by this body, and 
there will be an expeditious schedule established so that we can have 
the appropriate congressional oversight.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  I note no other Senator seeking recognition. I suggest the absence of 
a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
permitted to speak as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________